1 CGHC010354362026 2026:CGHC:41492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8975 of 2026 1 - Rajeev Kumar S/o Prahlad Prasad Aged About 43 Years R/o Dariyapur Gola, Ward No. 42, Dhobi Gali, P.S. Kadam Kuna, District Patna, Present Address-Vishram Apartment, Room No. 301, Pataliputra Colony, P.S. Patali Putra, District Patna Bihar ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Afsha Anjum, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 24.09.2026 1) This is the fourth bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 290/2024 registered at Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 22(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 2) Earlier, first bail application of the applicant bearing MCRC No.5932 of 2024 was rejected vide order dated 07.10.2024. Thereafter, the applicant preferred the second bail application bearing MCRC No.1506 of 2025, which was rejected on merits vide order dated 03.03.2025. REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH DN: cn=REKHA SINGH, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.09.24 16:32:30 +0530 2 The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.5908 of 2025, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2025, thereby affirming the order passed by this Court. Thereafter, the applicant preferred the third bail application bearing MCRC No.4366 of 2026, which was also rejected on merits vide order dated 11.05.2026. 3) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on receiving secret information, the police of Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.), conducted a raid and seized Alprazolam and Tramadol tablets and capsules weighing 10,718.88 grams (10.71888 kilograms) from two persons travelling in vehicle bearing No. CG-24-AF-7028. Both co- accused persons were arrested on the spot. One of them disclosed in his memorandum statement that said medicines had been received from Trishul Pharma Company, whereupon the present applicant, stated to be its owner, was arrested from Bihar. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 29.07.2024. He would further submit that all 15 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and, therefore, nothing further remains to be examined from the prosecution side. He submits that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. On these grounds, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the involvement of the present applicant has come to light from the memorandum statement of one of the co-accused persons, from whose possession contraband articles, in quantity much above the commercial quantity, were recovered. Therefore, the rigour 3 of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted and the applicant is not entitled to grant of bail. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that this is the fourth bail application of the present applicant. The earlier three bail applications were rejected on merits, namely, MCRC No.5932 of 2024 vide order dated 07.10.2024, MCRC No.1506 of 2025 vide order dated 03.03.2025, and MCRC No.4366 of 2026 vide order dated 11.05.2026. It is further apparent that the co-accused, namely Vishwpati Gorai, has filed CRMP No.1714 of 2026 before this Court, and vide order dated 13.07.2026, further proceedings in Sessions Case No.48 of 2024, pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Balod, Chhattisgarh, have been stayed till the next date of hearing. In view of said stay, the trial could not proceed further. However, all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Therefore, the plea of delay in conclusion of the trial raised by learned counsel for the applicant does not have much force. 8) Considering the fact that earlier three bail applications of the present applicant were rejected on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting a different view, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha